Jump to content


Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  Wulfsbane : (11 December 2019 - 09:42 AM)

93

@  Ishapar : (09 December 2019 - 08:48 AM)

Shame to hear about that. How old was he?

@  RedG : (06 December 2019 - 06:04 PM)

Sorry to hear, Wulfsbane. My condolences.

@  Wulfsbane : (05 December 2019 - 10:43 PM)

My grandfather passed on the 17th.

@  chief : (30 November 2019 - 03:32 PM)

oh?

@  Wulfsbane : (28 November 2019 - 07:14 PM)

This year's Thanksgiving was a lot tougher than normal.

@  Wulfsbane : (28 November 2019 - 07:14 PM)

Same to you.

@  RedAuthar : (28 November 2019 - 03:47 PM)

Happy American Turkey Day

@  chief : (09 November 2019 - 02:20 PM)

http://www.sonicsatam.com/sea3on/

@  Shadow : (31 October 2019 - 10:44 AM)

H A P P Y H A L L O W E E N

@  Kev : (20 October 2019 - 02:19 PM)

Sally acorn painting you can try to follow along, needs re-voicing as its just me for now.

@  Kev : (20 October 2019 - 02:18 PM)

Made another cartoon episode, its a painting tutorial on youtube check out my channel= 2D 3D CARTOONS

@  Wulfsbane : (05 October 2019 - 11:05 PM)

Well the player base went up exponentially since the switch.

@  wildfire : (05 October 2019 - 08:39 PM)

Probably to help Bungie now that Activision's money isn't backing them.

@  Wulfsbane : (03 October 2019 - 06:33 AM)

Destiny made the move to Steam.

@  Wulfsbane : (09 September 2019 - 10:12 AM)

We'll probably see Tracer soon

@  Shadow : (06 September 2019 - 10:48 PM)

I'd rather see Mai in Smash

@  Wulfsbane : (06 September 2019 - 09:05 AM)

I'm more surprised about the Fatal Fury character.

@  Wulfsbane : (06 September 2019 - 08:00 AM)

Really wasn't keen on the idea of Sans being playable, but I guess he's in the same vein as Ness/Lucas

@  Wulfsbane : (06 September 2019 - 08:00 AM)

I think it works.


Photo

Science Vs. Religion. This Topic Is Locked Indefinately


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
191 replies to this topic

#41 furrykef

furrykef

    Fellow FUSer

  • Tech Guy
  • 4,503 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 April 2013 - 11:51 AM

I will now address the points that I wanted to address in my previous post.

Any machine you make can only be as intelligent as its creator or creators.

Now to give this one a less glib response than before. What you really mean, I think, is that a program is limited to the specifications that a programmer has imposed upon it. The machine cannot do anything the programmer hasn't thought of (defects in the program notwithstanding). As a programmer, I know darn well that this is true.

But the human brain is no different. The human brain cannot do anything that it isn't programmed to do. For example, the brain's vision system is programmed to work a certain way. You can't just change how you see things. You can't choose to see a leprechaun if one isn't actually there. You might ingest a mushroom and suddenly you do see a leprechaun, but all you're doing is interfering with your brain's programming.

And yes, your brain can learn to do new things, but so can a software program. Why couldn't a sufficiently smart program just write a subprogram to handle an unfamliar task? That's not unlike what the human mind does, though we do it unconsciously. Watch an EEG (a type of brain scan) of somebody learning to do something and you can see changes in the brain as the subject learns to perform the task better. What the brain is doing is optimizing itself for the task, organizing things so that the information can be processed faster and better. It is reprogramming itself.

This is the illusion caused by the true Wizard of Oz hiding behind the curtain in the back of the room. We can make it seem real, seem possible, but there is one part science can't seem to emulate. Machines can not be conscious because we can not replicate consciousness.

On what grounds?

"But hypothetically" you say. Well if you can "hypothetically" give humans the ability to give machines consciousness, "hypothetically" there must have been some being who gave humans consciousness. The Machine didn't just wake up with it. Why would the human?

Because humans evolved to have it. Humans are at the top of the food chain. We have our pick of whatever species we want to eat, and no other species can eat us so long as we are properly prepared for the possibility (for instance, carrying a powerful rifle if you think you might soon encounter a tiger). This is obviously a strong evolutionary advantage; humanity's not going anywhere anytime soon, barring something like a surprise meteor, running out of natural resources, or World War III. But look at us. We're not huge. We're not strong. We don't run fast. We don't have tough natural armor. We have absolutely nothing going for us that other species don't do better... except our brains. They didn't evolve all at once, of course. We started with simple things such as tool use (which has been observed in animals, especially birds and apes) -- aha, we can kill prey more effectively if we throw a spear at it; we can improve the quality of meat by cooking it -- and so our dominance grew a bit. Then we observed that we wouldn't have to spend so much time searching and running if we simply bred our prey instead of hunting for it, and so we invented farming. We also applied much the same idea to plants. Now societies started to form and people had to learn how to get along with one another. Every smart idea that humanity came up with increased its dominance, and so, in accordance with the theory of natural selection, smarter populations flourished while less smart populations faltered.

Consciousness is just a side effect of being smart. I don't see how you could be smart -- able to learn new things, able to explore new ideas on your own volition -- without being sentient. What would it even mean?

Ignoring the matter does not prove it wrong.

I didn't say it did. My entire point was that science cannot prove it wrong (or right). The existence or nonexistence of a divine being is simply not a scientific matter at the moment.

#42 RedAuthar

RedAuthar

    The Spambot Killer.

  • Admins
  • 38,575 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Knothole

Posted 28 April 2013 - 01:12 PM

High five for being stubborn! Wooo!

Not if you're firing me

#43 chief

chief

    An7imatt3r was here =p

  • Admins
  • 7,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Coast, BC, Canada

Posted 28 April 2013 - 01:28 PM

High five for being stubborn! Wooo!

Not if you're firing me



But....High five. . . Don't leave me hanging bro

#44 Wulfsbane

Wulfsbane

    One of the Scribes

  • Moderators
  • 13,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Probably at a hockey rink somewhere.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 01:31 PM

i didnt leave you hanging

The Scribes, if anyone wants to join a growing community. Ask me if you want to know more.

 

“Some say that he is the only man in history to buy a DFS sofa when there wasn’t a sale on, and that his favourite boxing venue is Munich airport. All we know is he’s called the Stig.”

 

“Some say that if you hold him in the wrong way he doesn’t work properly, and that just very recently he developed an irrational hatred of Rubens Barrichello. All we know is he’s called the Stig.”

 

Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. -Colossians 3:13


#45 furrykef

furrykef

    Fellow FUSer

  • Tech Guy
  • 4,503 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 April 2013 - 01:45 PM

I'm lagging behind quite a bit because my responses are so detailed... and you guys don't know the half of it. You think this post is long? You should have seen it before I cut it down.

We understand English in a similar manner, yes, by following a complex set of rules. English itself, as with any language, is chiefly a tool, however, a means of communicating emotions, and ideas. Those things aren't achieved by following sets of rules.

Oh yes they are! The brain does two things: it connects neurons to one another and it sends electrical signals among them. Let's tackle emotion. You should know darn well that there are regions of the brain that deal with emotion -- these neurons fire when you're sad, these other neurons fire when you're angry, etc. If Charlie tells you "my dog just died" this input gets processed something like this:
* Charlie's dog died.
* Charlie loves his dog.
* Charlie lost something he loved.
* Charlie must be sad.
* I like Charlie.
* I haven't met Charlie's dog.
* Since I like Charlie, I want Charlie to like me.
* Charlie will like me if I sympathize with him.
* Since Charlie is sad, and I want to sympathize with him, I should be sad too.
* Fire "sadness" neurons!

Or maybe it will go like this:
* Charlie's dog died.
* I like Charlie's dog.
* Charlie mistreated his dog.
* Bad things happen to mistreated dogs.
* Death is a bad thing.
* Charlie's dog probably died from Charlie's mistreatment of the dog.
* Charlie is responsible for the death of a creature I like.
* Fire "righteousness" and "anger" neurons!

But why do we feel emotions? What makes it more than a mere intellectual response? Biology. Fear makes us shiver and our hairs to stand on end. Anger makes us raise our voices and scrunch our eyebrows because we seem more threatening that way. Both fear and anger raise your heart rate. This is all sensory information, and so it can be simulated.

That's even the case with aspects of language. I often find beauty in what I read, whether due to the subject matter or simply the way it is arranged. There's no rule indicating that a certain turn of phrase is beautiful.

No objective rule, true. But nothing prevents the writer of the rulebook injecting his opinion into the rules. Perhaps the rulebook writer finds rhymes appealing. Perhaps he has a fondness for alliteration. So the rulebook will give some beauty points to a line that applies alliteration and rhyming -- and subtract many more points for that same phrase because it contains the phrase "dog snot". There is no situation that cannot be covered by a rule.

It's true that you would need far too many rules for this to be a practical approach, perhaps more rules than there are atoms in the universe. That's why the Chinese Room is only a hypothetical construct. But you wouldn't build a real AI with these kinds of rules. You would build something that works much like the human brain -- a system of neurons. It's all still a set of rules, but a very different kind of set of rules. Now it's a system that can learn, a system that can recognize patterns, a system that can generalize.

But the question of whether such an AI can actually be built doesn't strike me as relevant. It's just a thought experiment to explore the meaning of consciousness.

The man in the Chinese room will never be able to use the book to find beauty in Chinese poetry or literature. If he does, it is because he formed an emotional connection on his own. The book helped communicate what was needed to form that connection, but it didn't create it. If a different person followed the same rule book and read the exact same poem or novel, his reaction would not be identical to that of the first person.

This is not in the spirit of the Chinese Room experiment. Remember, the man in the Chinese Room does not speak Chinese, nor does he even know what's being said to him or what he's saying in response. He can't form an opinion on a poem, and even if he could, he's forbidden from injecting his opinion into his response, because he can only respond using the rules in the rulebook. The only reason the man is in the room is because somebody or something has to follow the instructions in the book. In computer terms, the man is a CPU (something that follows instructions), and the rulebook is a program (instructions to be followed).

Human consciousness is so much more than what can be externally observed. I know this because of my own mind.

Imagine the Chinese Room saying the same thing. Would you be able to refute it?

Let's say that my friend tells me his parents just died. I do not directly feel his sorrow. Yet based on what he communicates (words, tone, body language), I know with a very high degree of certainty that he is sad. A sufficiently programmed machine could do the same. What a machine could not do, however, that I can, is create a simulated version of his sorrow.

Why not?

A machine could soothe and state how sorry and sad it is all it wants, but it could not experience that sorrow itself. It could feel empathy, perhaps, but never sympathy.

But you are a machine. There is nothing in the way you think, act, or feel that cannot be explained as a function of neurons.

#46 RedAuthar

RedAuthar

    The Spambot Killer.

  • Admins
  • 38,575 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Knothole

Posted 28 April 2013 - 01:49 PM

High five for being stubborn! Wooo!

Not if you're firing me



But....High five. . . Don't leave me hanging bro

*leaves you hanging bro*

#47 Captain Sorzo

Captain Sorzo

    The Captain

  • Scribes of Mobius
  • 411 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richardson, Texas

Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:51 PM

Kef, I'm not going to pursue this further. Additional discussion will invariably require me going over what I've already read on the subject, as well as performing additional research and linking citations and doing all sorts of fun things that I frankly don't have time for right now. Final stretch of the semester and all that.

We could argue all summer long in exhaustive detail, and I doubt either of our viewpoints would change.

57677ee618a4a_FSOMBanner.jpg.004b52a1171

 

Story updates and more now available at Free Scribes of Mobius!


#48 furrykef

furrykef

    Fellow FUSer

  • Tech Guy
  • 4,503 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 April 2013 - 03:03 PM

Yeah, I was getting exhausted too, and would probably have let the matter drop no matter what your reply was. :P

Good show, though.

#49 RedAuthar

RedAuthar

    The Spambot Killer.

  • Admins
  • 38,575 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Knothole

Posted 28 April 2013 - 03:50 PM

Yeah. I'm out too. More hassle then it is worth. And I really don't wanna offend someone.

#50 Wulfsbane

Wulfsbane

    One of the Scribes

  • Moderators
  • 13,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Probably at a hockey rink somewhere.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 04:03 PM

its easier to offend someone today than not to offend someone...

I know someone who said good morning and was offended by that

The Scribes, if anyone wants to join a growing community. Ask me if you want to know more.

 

“Some say that he is the only man in history to buy a DFS sofa when there wasn’t a sale on, and that his favourite boxing venue is Munich airport. All we know is he’s called the Stig.”

 

“Some say that if you hold him in the wrong way he doesn’t work properly, and that just very recently he developed an irrational hatred of Rubens Barrichello. All we know is he’s called the Stig.”

 

Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. -Colossians 3:13


#51 furrykef

furrykef

    Fellow FUSer

  • Tech Guy
  • 4,503 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 April 2013 - 04:12 PM

I don't think anybody here's gotten offended. Which actually surprises me, considering some of the things I said earlier.

#52 Wulfsbane

Wulfsbane

    One of the Scribes

  • Moderators
  • 13,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Probably at a hockey rink somewhere.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 04:12 PM

I don't think anybody here's gotten offended.


not yet at least

The Scribes, if anyone wants to join a growing community. Ask me if you want to know more.

 

“Some say that he is the only man in history to buy a DFS sofa when there wasn’t a sale on, and that his favourite boxing venue is Munich airport. All we know is he’s called the Stig.”

 

“Some say that if you hold him in the wrong way he doesn’t work properly, and that just very recently he developed an irrational hatred of Rubens Barrichello. All we know is he’s called the Stig.”

 

Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. -Colossians 3:13


#53 RedAuthar

RedAuthar

    The Spambot Killer.

  • Admins
  • 38,575 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Knothole

Posted 28 April 2013 - 04:51 PM

I don't think anybody here's gotten offended. Which actually surprises me, considering some of the things I said earlier.

It's because we're all mature about it.
*cough*

#54 chief

chief

    An7imatt3r was here =p

  • Admins
  • 7,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Coast, BC, Canada

Posted 28 April 2013 - 06:56 PM

Im offended... Red left me hanging! I mean WTF!?? Screw you

#55 RedAuthar

RedAuthar

    The Spambot Killer.

  • Admins
  • 38,575 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Knothole

Posted 28 April 2013 - 07:00 PM

Fine. *Late high five*

#56 furrykef

furrykef

    Fellow FUSer

  • Tech Guy
  • 4,503 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 April 2013 - 07:09 PM

You don't count, chief.

#57 Wulfsbane

Wulfsbane

    One of the Scribes

  • Moderators
  • 13,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Probably at a hockey rink somewhere.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 07:12 PM

Im offended... Red left me hanging! I mean WTF!?? Screw you


i didnt leave you hanging...

The Scribes, if anyone wants to join a growing community. Ask me if you want to know more.

 

“Some say that he is the only man in history to buy a DFS sofa when there wasn’t a sale on, and that his favourite boxing venue is Munich airport. All we know is he’s called the Stig.”

 

“Some say that if you hold him in the wrong way he doesn’t work properly, and that just very recently he developed an irrational hatred of Rubens Barrichello. All we know is he’s called the Stig.”

 

Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. -Colossians 3:13


#58 Alextendo

Alextendo

    Fellow FUSer

  • Fellow FUSer
  • 1,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:23 AM

Wow, i can't belive i didn't see that debate earlier. Damn, just few days and the page is full of comment, i didn't even read them all that i already have alot to said. Let's pick one of the comment that really tick me of:

I believe being created sounds more logical then just randomly being there.


For one, you have absolutly no knowledge about evolution, otherwise you wouldn't said that. ''Being randomly there'', go learn about evolution instead of make statement without knowing the subject, please.

Also, for anyone dare to say that the WW2 wasn't because of religion, but only because of politic, take a look at this picture below.

I'm 100% atheist, why? Because i have study religion and science. And i have to said, that religion, no matter which one, is the absolute worst thing manking have EVER come up with. No contest! Religion only serve to discriminate people by their race or gender, forced hate agaisnt other, give abusive control and cause war.

Genocide, the crusade, the Christian Dark Age, the second world war, etc, are reason among so many other that show the true nature of religion. Not only every religion is BEYOND absurb, but people can actually belive it. How is that possible?

One answer: Fear.
In 1938, a radio broadcast tell the people of an alien invasion. Despite being just an Halloween special, 1.2 million people belive it, some even claim to have see the alien. This became a good exemple of how people can loose their sanity and belive anything, no matter how absurb it could be when you can make them affraid. For religion, make them fear Hell, and they will belive you, no matter how stupid their religion could be.

Attached Files


If my english can look like crap, don't kill me...please? French is my native language!
PS: I love bacon. Why? Because i said so...(i also love the Dreamcast)
My Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ZoneofDoom

 

 


#59 Alextendo

Alextendo

    Fellow FUSer

  • Fellow FUSer
  • 1,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:59 AM

There is, however you'd have to believe that the evidence is valid and since you're atheist you already don't.


This is the religion way to deny everything that could oppose your belif. Everything has an explanation, but when you don't, you need something to cover that up. I could said that i belive in magical flying cat for exemple, but does that make it true, only because i belive it? NO!

I'm sure we have many Christian beliver here in this forum and i challenge everyone of you to give me concrete evidence to proove that your ''Christian'' religion should be taken seriously, or could be potentialy possible to be true. After all, if your religion is real and your God is true, they probably have alot of evidance to proove their existance, right?

If my english can look like crap, don't kill me...please? French is my native language!
PS: I love bacon. Why? Because i said so...(i also love the Dreamcast)
My Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ZoneofDoom

 

 


#60 RedAuthar

RedAuthar

    The Spambot Killer.

  • Admins
  • 38,575 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Knothole

Posted 29 April 2013 - 01:19 PM

Okay I said I was done but since you specifically wanted to counter one of my comments here goes:


Wow, i can't belive i didn't see that debate earlier. Damn, just few days and the page is full of comment, i didn't even read them all that i already have alot to said. Let's pick one of the comment that really tick me of:

I believe being created sounds more logical then just randomly being there.


For one, you have absolutly no knowledge about evolution, otherwise you wouldn't said that. ''Being randomly there'', go learn about evolution instead of make statement without knowing the subject, please.

You are mistaken. I do know about Evolution. In fact I know enough about evolution that I feel justified in my comment.
  • There is little to no evidence evolution is happening now. I see adaptation yes, but no evolution. I see a lot of animals changing their behaviors but no new animals from those changes of behaviors.
  • There are not transitional forms between animals. For example: Whales supposedly evolved from a land species, yet we've never seen fossils supporting the between point. We have a land species and a water species. The steps in between are missing.
  • Rabbit eating their own poop: The Rabbit's digestive system is upside down. Explain in what situation evolution would cause that a Rabbit must eat it's food twice before being able to gain any nutrients from it. Religion states that Man was made superior then all other species thus rabbits would have an inferior system. Evolution can not explain that.
  • The law of increasing entropy: Aka things change from the complex to the simple. Evolution apparently works backwards. Why? Science arguing with itself at it's best.
Before making assumptions such as "I don't know about evolution" you should actually find out what I know.

Also as for the World War 2 statement, I've already answered it. Yes Hitler had his motivations for the HOLOCAUST a completely different event that happened at the same time, but the Allies did not even KNOW or at least didn't acknowledge the event until AFTER the War started. We didn't storm beaches to free jews. The war was not entirely about that.

Also Jews were the most killed yes, but he also killed people who were left handed, homosexual, and many others that didn't fit his "master race". The Jewish deaths were not the whole war.

There is, however you'd have to believe that the evidence is valid and since you're atheist you already don't.


This is the religion way to deny everything that could oppose your belif. Everything has an explanation, but when you don't, you need something to cover that up. I could said that i belive in magical flying cat for exemple, but does that make it true, only because i belive it? NO!

I'm sure we have many Christian beliver here in this forum and i challenge everyone of you to give me concrete evidence to proove that your ''Christian'' religion should be taken seriously, or could be potentialy possible to be true. After all, if your religion is real and your God is true, they probably have alot of evidance to proove their existance, right?

I can't as you've denied my evidence with your claim about fear. Instead I challenge you to find 100% that God is fake and thus Religion is fake.

Which you can't do either.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users